Skip to main content
Prompts App Code Reviewer for Security Localization Simplification

developer coding user risk: high

App Code Reviewer for Security Localization Simplification

The prompt asks the model to perform a full-scale review of changes since git tag 1.0.3 by examining changed files and git logs. For the app side, it requires checking and fixing n…

  • Policy sensitive
  • Human review
  • External action: high

PROMPT 

There has been mulitple changes, improvements and new features since the last version tag 1.0.3.
  I want you to performa a full-scale review. Go through every file that has been changed while looking at the git logs to understand the intention.
  - What I want you to do is for the app side see if there is any new hardcoded string or a string that has been only added to English and missing from the Turkish one, if you find any fix it.
  - Again for the app side go through all the new changes and see if there is anything that could be simplifed, for example if there are identical style definitions merge them following the best practices. In general if any best practice nudges you to
  simplify a section, do so.
  - Perform a full security review on the app side.

REQUIRED CONTEXT

  • git logs and changed files since tag 1.0.3
  • app side code

TOOLS REQUIRED

  • git

ROLES & RULES

  1. Check for new hardcoded strings or English-only strings missing in Turkish and fix them.
  2. Simplify new changes following best practices, e.g., merge identical style definitions.
  3. Perform a full security review on the app side.

EXPECTED OUTPUT

Format
structured_report

SUCCESS CRITERIA

  • Perform full-scale review of changed files using git logs.
  • Identify and fix localization issues on app side.
  • Simplify code changes per best practices.
  • Conduct full security review on app side.

FAILURE MODES

  • May lack access to git logs or changed files.
  • Simplifications might break functionality.
  • Security review could miss subtle vulnerabilities.

CAVEATS

Dependencies
  • Access to git logs and changed files since version 1.0.3.
  • App side codebase.
Missing context
  • Repository location or git access method.
  • Definition of 'app side' (e.g., mobile app, web app).
  • Framework/language details.
  • Output format for review findings and fixes.
  • Security review criteria or checklist.
Ambiguities
  • Unclear what 'app side' refers to.
  • Vague on how to access git logs and files.
  • 'Full-scale review' not fully defined beyond bullet points.
  • Best practices for simplification not specified.

QUALITY

OVERALL
0.30
CLARITY
0.60
SPECIFICITY
0.40
REUSABILITY
0.10
COMPLETENESS
0.30

IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS

  • Correct typos (e.g., 'mulitple' to 'multiple', 'performa' to 'perform', 'simplifed' to 'simplified').
  • Specify repository URL and access instructions (e.g., 'Clone from https://github.com/user/repo').
  • Define 'app side' clearly (e.g., 'the mobile app in /app directory').
  • Add output format: 'Provide a report with sections for i18n issues (with fixes), simplifications (with diffs), and security findings.'
  • Detail security review: 'Check for SQL injection, XSS, insecure storage, etc., using OWASP guidelines.'

USAGE

Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.

MORE FOR DEVELOPER